APHC010129102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6494/2025 Between: Gugulothu Nagaraju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISTAM SAKTHI NIRANJAN GUPTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6494/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the petitioner property bearing 1) Sy.No.126/1 admeasuring Ac.1.33 cents and 2) Sy.No.365/2A1B admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents located in Budawada Village, Jagayyapeta Mandal, NTR District and trying to alter the revenue webland entries as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Rules, 1989 and violation of Article 300- A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in the above mentioned subject lands and pass such other order.” 2. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without following due process of law. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, the respondents are not interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and it is only the apprehension of the petitioner. If the respondents intend to interfere with 3 the petitioner’s peaceful possession of the subject property, the respondents would follow due process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. 1 ”. Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, except by following due process of law. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 19.03.2025 TTPPSS 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 180 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:6494 of 2025 19.03.2025 TTPPSS